Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

They currently don't have a carrier at sea so I would not be too worried about what primary fighter they were using.

As work on new radar types progresses, the radars carried by Russian carriers will only get better and better.

Also keep in mind the Aircraft the Russian carriers are using are not to invade and take over countries or to eliminate threats like Iran or Iraq or Yemen... or the UK or France.

The purpose of the fighters is to operate over the Russian surface action group and defend the ships and subs and the AWACS platforms being used.

400km range 40N6s can take out F-35s if needed, and any ship or land based threats to the surface action group can be handled with hypersonic manouvering ship or sub launched missiles.

New generation radars and sensors and air to air weapons will continue to make Russian carrier aircraft effective and relevant... without costing a fortune.

They are working on a new light 5th gen fighter and probably a range of other projects as well... most models show a range of aircraft on them and there is no reason why their new carriers wont have a variety of fighters depending upon the needs of the group.

Fighters operating CAP missions above the ships don't need enormous ranges and most of the time their information will come from the AWACS platform they are operating with anyway.

Again this is not the Soviet Navy, Russians have shown they want US styled carriers.

Then why do they include ski ramps for fighter takeoffs?

US Styled carriers would have extra EM cats and a totally flat deck so they could all get heavily loaded strike aircraft launched rapidly to take down democracy and end peace where ever they want when ever they want.

I don't know why you keep saying this myth that they are designing their carriers according to a long-dead Soviet naval doctrine.

Yeah, you forget Russians don't think of aircraft the same way americans do... just look at the air defence capacity of the navy and army in Russia and in the US.

The Russians don't expect air power to support them. The US expect air cover and support for everything they do.

It would be cheaper at that point to build an airbase and stick some fighters there

Build it where... after seeing what the US has done to Syria and Venezuela I am pretty sure not many countries want a Russian airbase on their land and why would Russia pay money to build an airbase they could lose control of with one vote at the elections?

An aircraft carrier is an airfield they can move to where it is needed when it is needed.

Fleet air defense doesn't exclude the need to be able to conduct air strikes deep into enemy territory.

Well duh, why would they be talking about 4,500km range cruise missiles launched from Russian ships and subs if they didn't intended deep strikes inside enemy territory?

But if they have 4,500km range cruise missiles why would they risk a dozen aircraft on the same mission?

A few naval Su-57s flying at 20km altitude at mach 1.5 or so with 380km range air to air missiles like R-37M and any upgrades would be ideal for shooting at enemy AWACS platforms coordinating a defence against a cruise missile attack and of course other AAMs could be used against any fighter that rises up to try and stop said cruise missiles... there would be little real need to enter enemy air space at all.

That has nothing to do with designing carriers to a Soviet Standard.

You've got to keep in mind that with the Russians being the good guys they will only go in to help a good side and not crush an entire people to their maniacal colonial will, like the US does all the time.

Because Russia has no functional catapults, they would love some but that Ramp is all they have ATM.

The Russians don't have any aircraft that would benefit from cats at the moment.

Their future designs have two cats plus a ramp, which clearly means cats for AWACS and inflight refuelling aircraft... it means redundancy for the AWACS platform, but for fighter planes the ramp is faster to get fighters airborne.

Their AD sites, have nothing to do with an AC. The reason they invest so much in portable AD sites is that it's cheaper than trying to match NATO plane for plane. You are taking something way out of context.

All their forces are intended to be operating in environments where they can't guarantee air control or air dominance... army, navy, air force... all have their own AD that is not based on aircraft.

Yes, they do expect their air power to support them lol.

They use air power to improve their performance and capabilities, but they don't expect 24/7 air support.

If a country is important enough for Russia to send what would be one of their only two CV's at best, then that country should be on very good terms.

They could simply allow Russia to park planes in an already built airbase, it would be much more expensive for Russia buck to buck to maintain a fleet offshore. This is economics 101.

Well lets take Venezuela as a recent example... the amount of warning given regarding the US attempt at a second coup in Venezuela means that boxing up some fighter planes and putting them into cargo ships and shipping them down to Venezuela was not a very practical proposition... sending some aircraft carriers for a joint exercise on the other hand would have been much more practical and sensible.

No, those carriers would not be there to fight off US carriers or any such bullshit, but having Russian ships off the coast would be much more reassuring for the Venezuelan military at a time when they were being bribed or coerced into releasing prisoners and arming them to rise up and turn the country into a bloodbath of hate and chaos... you know... the sort of place American loves...

Ah save me the stick "Russia is the good guys" They would throw someone under the bus in a second if it suits them. They have their interests and we have ours that's all.

Obviously, but their interests in Syria was to keep a stable and working country, as are their interests in Venezuela, while American interests are terrorism and war and chaos... I can see why you think I should not be so quick to decide on who the good guys are because it will be 20-30 years of civil war before anyone knows who gets the oil if America gets their way...

That's why they should buy the su-57 ... they need less than 20 jets for the K so the best thing to do is buy the best they have. Small quantity but strong capabilities.

But they already have MiGs and Su-33s for that carrier. Working on a navalised model of the Su-57 is not a bad idea but there is no hurry... it wont be needed for a CVN until at least 2028 or so...

They wont put the Su-33 back in to production so the only option for in production carrier aircraft is the dual use MiG-35s, but I think the Su-33 and Su-57s make sense for future use and production respectively.

Believe it or not, that's the reality. Japan/south Korea are getting their f-35. China is getting its j-31 and stealth bomber. Poland/UK/israel/italy .... also are getting their f35. US are flying their F-22 around the world from anywhere they want.

Yeah, I really don't see the 3,000 goal number ever being reached if they have such a pissy fit about Turkey using F-35s together with S-400... I mean if it wont work against such systems the Russia already have large numbers of S-400 in service are they going to block Poland from having F-35s... and if China has S-400 will Japan and South Korea be allowed any?

And how many of them will fly over Arctic region? F-35 are expensive planes.

Very good point.... they are not long range aircraft... and so an Su-33 could easily defeat an armata of F-35s by getting a decent AESA upgrade and using new long range AAMs to shoot down all the inflight refuelling aircraft...

It would be much better with su-57 rather than migs on its deck.

The MiGs are already paid for and in service...

So they can survive if they buy 60 or 70 f-35. If western don't have money for basic needs then what will be Russia situation ? You really think buying a fighter jet will collapse a country ? Are you serious ?

Have you seen Norways problems with F-35s? Their low readiness together with the high costs of operation mean they are really struggling to get ground crew and pilots rated to operate the aircraft...

Will it be different for other countries?

Perhaps that is why Trump said NATO countries should be paying 4% GDP for NATO... did he know?

Introduction of 5th generation fighters in big numbers is a reality.

Yeah, I remember... when they first talked about the F-22 and the B-2 they were going to be the future... 1,500 F-22s and hundreds of B-2s to replace B-52s... but the situation changed and what is it... 188 F-22s and 19 B-2s...

Now we are told there is going to be 3,500 F-35s... well I guess 3,400 without Turkey...

The real interesting thing is that F-15s can carry more weapons further and much faster than an F-35 but it seems neither will fly over Syrian air space any more... so which exactly is the better aircraft?

Don't worry for Russia, because it is self suficient and those sanctions cut enouth ties, that collapse of the West will not take Russia to abbys with them.

Good point. Pushing Russia away from the west has made her look at what she needs and to develop that herself.... I am calling Russia a her... that could get me arrested soon here in the west... I also call cars she and ships and aircraft she as well... it is neither anti the vehicle I am talking about nor anti women but the femenazis don't care... they are probably just pissed because my misspelling of femenazis included the word men....

I am talking about replacing su-33 by su-57 on kuznetsov because it suck compare to what it may face... you are the one talking about using it from ground.

If you are talking about a computer game where one F-35 and one Su-33 go head to head, one on one, with no other factors involved I would agree, but right now we are talking about what will be an Su-33 operating above about a dozen or more S-400 batteries with four or five dozen S-350 batteries and Tor and Pantsir and Verba as well as Tunguska times about 30...

For flying out and looking at things and then flying back the Su-33 is actually faster and longer ranged than F-35s and the quality of radar and other sensors it carries can be changed with the addition of various pods...

The MiG-29KR was produced because it was put into production for India, previously there were thoughts on replacing Su-33s... mostly with new Flankers actually like the Su-33KUB which looks like an Su-34 but with a round nose radar.

The point is that the MiG and the Su-33 will likely continue to serve on the Kuznetsov for several decades to come... it is good enough for a range of duties.

I rather suspect that when they get around to making a new carrier it will be a CVN and it wont be a 100K ton ship, it will be as they planned a 70-80K ton vessel most likely with some variant of the Su-57 because it is their best plane.

Being smaller and lighter than the Su-33 but with rather more powerful engines and much less drag with internal weapon stores there is no reason why the Su-57K could not also operate on the Kuznetsov... except for the fact that it already has new planes to operate on it and with upgrades both the MiG and the Flanker could continue to be competitive for as long as the MiG-35 and Su-35 remain in service.

Their new developments in new generation radar technology might render stealth a dead end white elephant and all the next generation aircraft might not bother with stealth at all.